reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you for yielding. i rise today in support of this rule, house resolution 174 and the underlying bill, my legislation, h.r. 1076, to prohibit federal funding of national public radio and the use of federal funds to acquire radio content. it is time for american citizens to stop funding an organization that can stand on its own feet. long before any of the recent news stories on videos or the juan williams fiasco, i sponsored legislation in congress to pull the plug on taxpayer funding for n.p.r. i enjoy some programs on n.p.r., but i have long believed it can stand on its own. the pointed issue is not the quality or content of programming on n.p.r., the point is not the degree to which americans support the arts,

radio news, and educational programs, the point today is whether government programs and services that can be funded privately or otherwise available in the private sector should receive taxpayer funding. . apart from constitutional concerns, as a country we no longer have this luxury any more. with the national debt over $13 trillion, the government can't simply to fund nonessential services. let me add that no one can really argue that these programs will disappear if americans are no longer forced to subsidize them with federal taxpayers. n.p.r. can survive on its own. this bill will accomplish three things. one, it will prohibit direct funding of n.p.r. it now receives money from the corporation for public broadcasting, the department of education and commerce and the n.e.a., among others. two, it prohibits the use of federal funds provided to the corporation for public broadcasting for the payment of

dues by local radio stations to n.p.r. and third, it prohibits the use of federal funds provided through corporation for public public broadcasting for acquiring or producing programming. now, local stations could use federal funds from the corporation for their operating expenses, but they would have to produce their content or acquire it with nonfederal funds. now, unemployment is now about 9%. when we get federal spending under control, the economy will be stronger and there will be more jobs and that's why we're doing this. n.p.r. reports that only 2% of its funding comes from the federal government. however, that's only half the story. n.p.r. local radio stations directly receive connolly appropriated funds that reach -- congressionally appropriated funds. plus, local stations directly receive grants from other federal sources, such as the national endowment for the arts.

n.p.r. stations then use these taxpayer dollars on licensing fees for n.p.r. programming which goes back to the headquarters in washington. taking this indirect funding into account, federal funds now make up i would say closer to 20% of their annual budget. but let me be clear, this measure will not prohibit local stations from receiving any funding. it will just not allow them to use taxpayer dollars to pay n.p.r. programming and pay n.p.r. deuce. they can do it without -- n.p.r. dues. they can do it by embracing the private sector. i want n.p.r. to grow on its own. i'd like to see it thrive. just remove the taxpayer from the equation. i thank the rules committee for this resolution. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and to vote yes on the underlying bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the

gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy and her advocacy. i guess listening to my friend from colorado, and he gets it sort of half right. first of all, it's ironic that the new republican majority, having been touted on the floor for its openness, did in fact rush this to the floor without the 72-hour notice, not any substantive committee work. if it had been subjected to careful committee analysis, the flaws in the argument would have been revealed. it's not going to save a single penny of taxpayer dollars. not one. even in the unlikely event that this legislation pass through congress, which it won't. it won't defund n.p.r. n.p.r. will exist, and those of us who are in cleveland or new york or los angeles or washington, d.c., will be able to enjoy it, although it may be

diminished a little bit. what it does is hammer small rural american stations, smalltown and rural america where it's more expensive to broadcast and where they rely on this funding to be able to produce the programs. it would not just hammer n.p.r., but it would deny them the ability to use the funds for that subversive show, "prairie home companion," for "this american life," for "the car guys." it would prohibit them from producing locally produced content from other public broadcasting stations. this is lunacy. it unravels is carefully crafted partnership which has delivered year after year. it's why the american public strongly supports this investment, this one half cent per day. in fact, 78% of the american public want it maintained or

increased. and most interestingly, that same bipartisan poll showed that 2/3 of american republicans support keeping the funding or increasing it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: i just reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. markey: this bill would wipe "car talk" off the road. it would wipe "lake will be gone" off the map. it would close down "marketplace" and tell "wait, wait, don't tell me" to take a hike.

g.o.p. used to stand for grand old party. these funds used by national public radio or its competitors . as a result, this bill would silence public radio stations across the country, depriving listeners of the news and information they depend on. public radio stations can just raise the money from private donors, some say. not likely. local public radio stations need signature n.p.r. programs like "morning edition" and "all things considered" to attract audiences. by drawing listeners to local stations, these programs and others generate strong financial support from the local listening area. without these prominent n.p.r. programs, local stations won't be able to attract the audience and sufficient fundraising base to keep running. every month more than 170

million americans turn to their local public broadcasting stations for free, high-quality programs that focus on the issues most important to them. this bill would pull the plug. it would snuff out stations from coast to coast. many in rural areas where the public radio station is the primary source of news and information. this makes no sense. public radio is largely supported by wide jorts of americans, regardless of -- majorities of americans, regardless of party affiliation. it's relied upon while few watch broadcast tv and read newspapers. this bill was rushed to the floor without a single hearing, completely bypassing the committee. it's unwise, ill-conceived. i urge a no vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized.

mr. nugent: i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition today to this bill. today, republicans are trying to modify the funding structure of national public radio, one of the most widely used universally supported and efficient journalistic institutions in the country. the problem, mr. speaker, is no one can figure out why my republican colleagues are trying to accomplish and what they're trying to do with this trivial and misguided legislation. why are we wasting our time on this instead of creating jobs, instead of cutting spending? here we are changing the funding structure for something that works. we are $14 trillion in debt. instead of working with democrats to come to an agreement to reduce our expenditures and getting our economy going, republicans have decided to use their taxpayer-funded time on symbolic legislation that doesn't address america's fiscal situation, doesn't save

money, and most importantly, won't create a single job. mr. speaker, this is very transparent what's happening here. this bill is a response to a far-right agenda based on a manipulative got you video promulgated by conservative activists. don't we know where this policy comes from? i think we do. this bill is a distraction, not a serious piece of legislation. the republican caucus can't get themselves to agree on anything substantial so instead they are bringing this frivolous measure that doesn't save money or create jobs. i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nugent: i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. and happy st. patrick's day. today we debate the rule on whether or not to fund national public radio.

in is an ideologically driven attempt of defunding a revered institution. you can't stand balanced, objective news, so let's defund it. regardless of whether one supports n.p.r. or not, and i do, we can all be clear this bill does not do one thing. it does not create jobs. we've been here for 11 weeks, mr. speaker, and the republican majority has yet to bring a single jobs bill to the floor of the house. that's why i introduced the build america bonds now to create jobs act, legislation to extend the build america bonds now. during the last two years, $4.4 billion from the recovery act leveraged $181 billion to construct and repair schools, bridges and roads and more than

2,270 projects in every state in the union. according to moody's chief economist, this resulted in eight million potential preserved jobs. i ask my colleagues, turn away from this ideological driven debate on national public radio and let's get down to basics. let's pass a jobs bill. let's defeat this rule and give ourselves an opportunity to address the underlying issue of the american economy and i yield back and i thank my colleague from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york continues to reserve. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is

recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: good morning to the fend for yourself. that's the message of my friends on the other side of the aisle with short-term c.r.'s, $61 billion in reckless and ludicrous cuts that don't make sense, on 20% of the budget which is discretionary spending. but n.p.r., this morning i listened to n.p.r., as i usually do, and someone who designates them self as a republican called in and said i'm through. i'm a registered republican but i'm leaning democrat. i've been listening to n.p.r. for most of my life. biased, no? unbiased. n.p.r. is a voice of reason. federal funding frivolous? no. federal funding allows the object tift and no one can account -- objectivity and no one can account for it.

n.p.r., national public radio, speaks the truth on all of our cases. it provides the american people foreignwide an opportunity to hear a fair and balanced -- ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, let me yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: the resolution speaks nothing of facts. why do you desire to cut n.p.r.? why do you want to put the burden of a budget or a c.r. on the n.p.r.? the real issue is that no matter how much they keep doing, no one on the other side wants to address the cause of the issue of the deficit or the debt that we have to balance, we have to bring in a lumber of issues that we have to address. we can't scapegoat. i refuse to scapegoat the national public radio, a reason, a responsible voice for the american people. no matter who you are. it is a ridiculous legislation. i ask my colleagues to vote against it. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentlelady from new york has throw minutes. the gentleman from florida has seven minutes. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: might i inquire of the gentlewoman from new york if you have more speakers? ms. slaughter: i do not. do you have more? mr. nugent: i do not. ms. slaughter: i am prepared to close. mr. nugent: ok. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i thank you very much, mr. speaker. we've had a vigorous debate here this morning just as we did in the rules committee, and a lot was said i guess because it needed to be said. a lot was said that i think could argue with. one is that we are doing this because it puts us on the road to deficit reduction. . it is clear to everybody that this bill has no effect whatsoever on the deficit and saves no money. not a dime.

this is purely an ideological bill so that our members can go home and brag about what they have done to public radio. i want to talk a moment about what's in "the new york times" editorial this morning. this bill is, and i quote, the latest example of house republicans pursuing a long-standing ideological goal in the false name of fiscal prudence. the "times" says this is not a serious bill. it will never survive the president or presidential veto and cutting on the floor again has no effect on the deficit but would allow certain house members to pretend for the folks back home that they struck a blow tore liberty. i really don't understand, i know that the rules committee this morning said all the legislation we have done this term has been on job creation. i don't believe there's enough evidence to convict on that, mr. speaker. this again will cost jobs to be

lost. does nothing for the deficit. i don't care what you want to say about it and how you want to dress it up, those are the absolute facts. so i'm going -- in a few moments we'll call for the previous question and, mr. speaker, if we defeat that previous question, i want to do a real jobs bill here. i'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the house adopts the rule, it will bring up h.r. 11, the build america bonds to create jobs now act. this bill will spread job creation here at home, extending through 2012. the successful build america bonds to help city and local governments finance the rebuilding of american schools, hospitals, water systems, and transit projects at significantly lower costs. it is calculated that every billion dollars in federal funds will create 34,800 jobs and 6.2 billion in economic activity.

i ask you, mr. speaker, weigh that against taking the little bit of money away from national public radio. build america bonds broadly supported by american business, construction industry, and state and local governments. at a time of fiscal restraint, they are good deal for the american taxpayer, wisely using small public investments to leverage significant private funds to rebuild america and create jobs. so, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. i urge my colleagues to vote no, defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass jobs legislation today. urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, just want to bring to your attention

that the public watching this today on c-span does not receive a single, single federal dollar in regards to the operation of c-span. we are not closing down local radio stations. we are actually giving them the ability to liberate themselves from federal dollars. my good friends on the other side of the aisle continue to refuse to prioritize about what's important for america. they continue on a path of just spend because all programs are inherently good. while you have heard a lot of us like n.p.r. in regards to certain programming, there's others that we do not. mr. speaker, i'm reminded the other day of a quote by thomas jefferson. to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves in and is sinful and

tyrannical. with that in mind i can't in good conscious support to continue to fund n.p.r. a large number of americans fundamentally disagree with the content and mission of n.p.r. moreover, this program that can be privately funded, n.p.r.'s own officials say they don't need federal dollars to continue. we are not trying to harm n.p.r. we are actually trying to liberate them from federal tax dollars. we need to get back to the core mission of the federal government as much as any of us here, including myself, may enjoy programs like "car talk," "weight, wait, wait, don't tell me." you can't tell me that's a core mission of the federal government. our goods -- good friends in the same sentence talked about war, national defense, and n.p.r., they don't equate. the constitution's clear about

our retirement -- retirement to protect the american people -- requirement to protect american people. authorizing committees, provides us with bills that is the up priorities with house in appropriation committees funds based on authorizations. with h.r. 1067, we let the appropriations committee know that national public radio doesn't need federal tax dollars anymore. local stations can create their own programs, they can reorganize their financing so grant money, they might use for membership and programming fees, can go elsewhere and can do private fundraising they need for the dues and programming from n.p.r. with that i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: all time has expired. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote on the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question

specifically calendar days other than weekends or holidays when the house is not in session. for the sake of brevity the chair will call these working days and under clause 11 of rule 21 an unreported measure may not

be considered until the third working day on which it has been available to members. for example, that was pugliblick available in electronic form with regard to clause 3 of rule 29 on tuesday, march 15, 2011 would qualify on or after thursday, march 17, 2011. mr. weiner: further parliamentary inquiry. for the clarity of the house, did this bill age for 72 hours? yes or no? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will not respond to a hypothetical question. mr. weiner: mr. speaker, it is not at all hypothetical. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of the resolution.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. pursuant to the order of the house of march 16, 2011, i call up house concurrent resolution 28 and ask for its immediate consideration. once the house is in order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. let the house be in order. please take all sidebar discussions to the rear of the chamber. the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 28, concurrent resolution directing the president pursuant to section 5-c of the war powers resolution, to remove the united states armed forces from afghanistan. mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, the house is not in order.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. pursuant to the order of the house of wednesday, march 16, 2011, the concurrent resolution is considered as read. the concurrent resolution shall be debatable for two hours with one hour controlled by the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, or his designee, and one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on foreign affairs. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: if it's appropriate at this time, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to give the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, half of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman will control half of the time for the gentleman from ohio.

the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i rise in strong opposition to this resolution as it would undermine the efforts of our military and our international partners in afghanistan and gravely harm our nation's security. insanity has been described as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. 3,000 people died on september 11 because we walked away once from afghanistan thinking that it didn't matter who controlled that country, we were wrong then, let us not make the same mistake twice. . as

are as the undersecretary of testifies stated earlier this week, the threat emanating from the border of afghanistan and pakistan is not hypothetical. there is no other place in the world that contains such a concentration of senior al qaeda leaders and operational commanders. continue to allow these hostile organizations in this region -- to flourish in this region is to put the security of our friends and allies and the united states at great risk, end quote. to quit the area before we rooted out the terrorists would not only hand al qaeda a propaganda victory of

immeasure. able victory, but it would give them a sanctuary to mount fresh strikes at the west with virtual immunity. to withdraw from afghanistan at this point, before we finish the job, is to pave the way for the next 9/11. therefore the question we must consider is, can we afford to abandon our mission in afghanistan? general david petraeus, commander, international security assistance force, commander, u.s. forces afghanistan, stated, quote, i can understand the frustration. we have been at this for 10 years. we have spent an enormous amount of energy and money. we have sustained very tough losses and difficult, life-changing wounds. but i think it is important to remember why we are there, end quote. this is about our vital

national security interests, mr. speaker. it is about doing what is necessary to ensure that al qaeda and other extremists cannot re-establish safe havens such as the ones they had in afghanistan when the 9/11 attacks were planned against our nation and our people. the enemy indeed is on the run. it is demoralized and divided. let us not give up now. let us not betray the sacrifices of our men and women serving in harm's way and they ask for nothing in return except our full support. dedicated servants such as my stepton and daughter-in-law lindsay, who served in iraq, and lindsay also served in afghanistan, dedicated servants such as matt and greg of our foreign affairs committee the majority staff who just

returned from serving a year and we thank them for their service. they're right behind me. in kandahar and kabul. let us follow the lead of our wounded warriors who after long and arduous recoveries volunteer to return to the battlefield, volunteer to return to the battlefield to finish their mission. i urge our colleagues to oppose this dangerous resolution and mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield myself two minutes. in the next two hours, we're going to demonstrate that the american people oppose this war by a margin two to one. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this "washington post" poll published on march 15 that says that 2/3 of americans think the

war is not worth fighting. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: in the next two hours we're going to demonstrate we're spending $100 billion a year on this war. there are those saying the war could last another 10 years. are we willing to spend another $1 trillion on a war that doesn't have any exit plan, for which there is no time frame to get out, no end game where we haven't defined our mission? the question is, not whether we can afford to leave. the question is, can we afford to stay. i submit we cannot afford to stay. in the next two hours, we are going to nonstrait that the counterintelligence strategy of general petraeus is an abysmal failure and needs to be called as much. -- as such. i want to conclude this part of my presentation with a unanimous consent to put into the record an article by thomas friedman in the "new york times" that says, what are we

doing this year supporting corrupt and unpopular regems in afghanistan and pakistan that are almost identical to the governments we're applauding the arab people were overthrowing. i reseven the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the ranking member of the armed services committee, mr. smith of washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this resolution. i do so as one who does firmly believe we need to, as soon as we responsibly can, end our military engagement in afghanistan. the cost is very real. i represent joint base lewis mccord which includes fort lewis army base and we have lost many soldiers in after depan stan. the families understand the cost. we need to wind down this war as quickly and responsibly as we can. unfortunately, this resolution

does not give us the opportunity to do that. and we have clear national security interests in afghanistan. while i may agree with many of the statements about the troubles and challenges we face in that region, the one thing you'll hear today that i cannot agree with is the idea that we have no national security interests in afghanistan and pakistan or that we somehow do not have a clear mission. we have a clear mission. we do not want the taliban and their al qaeda allies back in charge of afghanistan or any significant part of afghanistan from which they could plot attacks against us as they are still trying to do in the parts of pakistan they're in. we need to get an afghanistan government that can stand up and they're going to need our help to get there. there are many who argued, and i'm sure some on both sides of the aisle, would be sympathetic with the notion that we need to reduce our commitment there, that a full-scale counterinsurgency effort or 150,000 nato and u.s. troops

combined is too much. let's go with a lighter footprint, many have advocated that. our focus is on counterterrorism, focus on going after the terrorists and allow the afghans to take the lead on everything else. there's a plausible argument for that. this resolution does not allow that. i want the members of this chamber to understand, this resolution requires complete withdrawal of all u.s. forces by the end of this year and i can tell you, as the ranking member on the armed services committee, that is not in the national security intest of this country. we may have a legitimate debate about what our presence should be, how we should change it -- can i have an additional 30 seconds? >> i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. smith: but the notion we can walk away from this problem, as ms. ros-lehtinen pointed out, is not true. it's a problem i as much as anyone would love to be able to walk away from. what mr. friedman has to say

about the goths of afghanistan and pakistan is spot on. but the problem is we can't walk away and let them fall because of the national security implications that that has for us right here at home given what the taliban and al qaeda would plan. i'm all in favor of more reasonable plans for how we go forward in afghanistan but simply heading to the hills and leaving is not a responsible plan, it's not even really a plan for how to deal with the difficult challenges we face in that reand i urge this body to oppose this resolution. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. jones: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, for giving me half his time. we are debating how long are we going to be in afghanistan. recently, secretary gates testified before the armed services committee, which i serve on, and said that he thought by 2014 we could start

substantial retux in our troop strength in afghanistan 20 14, it might be 2015, 2016. that's why this debate in this resolution is so important. not important for those of us in the house, but important for our military and the american people. and mr. kucinich did make reference to "the washington post"/abc news poll taken a couple of days ago that said that 73% of the american people said it's time, this year to bring our troops home. in addition, i would like to share a quote from the leader of afghanistan, mr. karzai, he is our man in afghanistan. all right, he's our man, this was his quote three days ago. i request that nato and america should stop these operations on our soil. this war is not on our soil. if this war is against terror,

then this war is not here. terror is not here. the number of al qaeda and their presence in afghanistan is about 20 or 30, most of them are in pakistan, i would agree with that. but this debate is critical. i want to, before i reserve the balance of my time, i want to share very quickly a letter from a retired colonel, a marine who lives in my district, i am writing this letter to express my concern over the current afghanistan war. i am a retired marine officer with 31-plus years of active duty. i retired in 2004 due to service limitations or i'm sure i would have been on my third or fourth deployment by now to a war that's gone on too long. i'll go to the bottom of this. it makes no sense if we're there four years or 40, the results will be the same. he closes the let they are way, this war is costing the united states billions of dollars, a

month to wage -- a billion -- the united states billions of dollars a month to wage and we're getting americans killed, the afghan war has no end state for us. i urge you to make contact with the newly elected men and women in congress and ask them to end this war and bring our young men and women home. if any of my comments will assist in this effort, you're welcome to use this and my name, respectfully, dennis g. adams, lieutenant colonel, retired, united states marine corps. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i

rise in absolute support of the resolution offered by the gentleman from ohio. the war in afghanistan almost 10 years old, has been an utter failure in every possible way. it hasn't eliminated the terrorist threat. it hasn't destroyed the taliban. it hasn't advanced national security objectives. it hasn't promoted a vibrant democracy in afghanistan. it hasn't done any of the things it was supposed to do. and general petraeus' testimony this week didn't inspire much confidence either. he continues to offer the same vague reassurances about progress we've supposedly made while being sure to say that challenges remain, he can continue justifying a substantial troop presence in afghanistan. but i'm not reassured in the least. much more importantly, the american people aren't reassured. after nine and a half years, after seeing 1,500 of their

fellow citizens killed, after writing the check -- a check to the tune of $386 billion, they've had enough. they are angry, they are frustrated. as well they should be. a new poll shows that nearly 2/3 of americans, 64%, think the war isn't worth fighting. this is one of the least popular things our government is doing and yet it's just about the only one republicans don't want to cut. i think it's about time the people's house listened to the people. on the issue of war and peace and life and death. we need to negotiate and we need to sign the status of forces agreement, sofa, with afghanistan. we need to move kickly toward the massive redeployment in july as the president promised more than a year ago. in the name of moral decency, fiscal sanity and constitutional integrity, it's time to bring our troops home.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker, before i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, the chairman of the house armed services committee, it is important to underscore as undersecretary of defense -- as the undersecretary of defense has, that to withdraw from afghanistan at this time before we finish the job is to pave the way for the next 9/11. she and other officials note we need look no further than the example of a 36-year-old german of afghan origin who u.s. interrogators talked to and he revealed that osama bin laden was planning an attack on europe. without our boots on the ground in afghanistan, the plot against europe might never have been uncovered. without our boots on the ground we won't be able to stop the next wave of attacks against our homeland, our citizens, our

families, and ourselves. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, the esteemed chairman of the house armed services committee. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. mckeon: i join with my colleagues from the foreign affairs colleague and colleagues from the armed services committee in opposition to this resolution. this resolution would undermine the efforts of our military commanders and troops as they work side by side with their afghan and coalition partners. yesterday in his testimony before the house armed services committee, general petraeus, commander of the u.s. and allied forces in afghanistan, described significant progress made by our troops and afghan forces. but while the united states is on track to accomplish our objectives by 2014, the general also warned that this hard-fought progress is fragile and reversible. and he urged the continued support from this congress for our mission in afghanistan is

vital to success. one -- when asked specifically how our troops and enemies would view the resolution before us today, general petraeus stated, the taliban and al qaeda obviously would trumpet this as a victory. needless to say it would completely undermine everything our troopers have fought so much and sacrificed so much for. mr. speaker, when the president authorized the surge of 30,000 additional troops, he reminded us of why we are in afghanistan. it's the epicenter of where al qaeda planned and launched the 9/11 attacks against innocent americans. it remains vital to the national security of this country to prohibit the taliban from once again providing sanctuary to al qaeda leaders. moreover, withdrawing before completing our mission would reinforce extremist propaganda that americans are weak and unreliable allies and to facilitate extremist recruiting and future attacks.

like most republicans, i supported the president's decision to surge in afghanistan . i believe that with additional forces, combined with giving general petraeus the time, space, and resources he needs we can win this conflict. during the visit last week with our troops in afghanistan, secretary gates observed, the closer you get to this fight, the better it looks. having just returned myself from afghanistan a few weeks ago, i couldn't agree more. our delegation to afghanistan met with senior military commanders and diplomats, talked to airmen at bag ram, marines in helmund and soldiers in kandahar. it was obvious our forces have made significant gains and reversed the taliban's momentum. our forces and their afghan partners have cleared enemy strongholds, swept up significant weapons caches, and given more afghans the confidence to defy the taliban.

we made considerable progress in growing and professionalizing the afghan's -- afghanistan's army and forces. as significant as our troops' achievements in the fields are, they can easily be undone by poor decisions made here in washington. today's debate is not being conducted in a vacuum. our troops are listening. our allies are listening. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman given an additional 30 seconds. mr. mckeon: the taliban and al qaeda also are listening and finally the afghan people are listening. mr. speaker, i want to send a clear message to the afghan people and government that our coalition partners, our military men and women, that this congress will stand firm in our commitment to free us from the problems that the taliban created for us on 9/11. we will not have this sanctuary ever happen again. and i urge my colleagues to vote

no on this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i think it's mr. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: mr. chairman, i rise -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: i rise in opposition to the resolution. mr. chairman, this is the third debate we have had pursuant to a war powers resolution in the last year. i completely agree with the gentleman from ohio that we, as we are moving into the 10th year of this conflict, it is critical

, not just nice, it's really critical for the house to have an open and honest debate on the merits of our ongoing military operations in afghanistan and that debate should be outside of the context of a defense spending bill. but what i also do is take strong issue with the invocation of section 50-c of the war powers act as the basis for this debate. if we are here to respect the law and the procedures, you have to remember that it is that section which authorizes a privileged resolution, like the one we have before us today, to require the withdrawal of u.s. forces when we are engaged in hostilities and congress has not authorized the use of military force. there are operations around the

world that people can claim under section 5-c have not been authorized. no one can make a contention that what we are now doing in afghanistan was not authorized by the congress. there can be no doubt this military action in afghanistan was authorized, it was authorized in 2001, soon after 9/11. but let's setaside the procedure and the specific dictates of the statute. i do think and share here in our -- the concerns well articulated by the ranking member of the house armed services committee, that it's not responsible to mandate a complete withdrawal of our troops from afghanistan by the end of the year without regard to the consequence our withdrawal. without regard to the situation on the ground. including efforts for economic development and expand the rule of law and without any

measurement whether the current strategy is indeed working. i'm very sensitive to the arguments posed by the gentleman from ohio. the cost of human life due to the war and the heavy costs incurred by our country at a time of great economic hardship should give any member of congress pause. i'm also keenly aware of the concerns regarding our overall u.s. strategy in afghanistan. it remains to be seen whether a counter insurgency strategy will succeed there and equally important whether the afghans are taking -- sufficient responsibility for this war. i'm troubled that the war very much remains an american-led effort and that the u.s. presence has created a culture of dependency in afghanistan. meanwhile, i won't support -- notwithstanding all that i will not support a call for a full withdrawal until we give the

president's strategy additional time, at least through the spring, to show results or without a responsible withdraw threat. remember positive elements make me unwilling to throw in the towel yet. for example as noted by general petraeus in testimony yesterday, coalition forces have been making some progress against taliban forces in southern afghanistan. in addition, the training of the afghan security forces has exceeded targets and we are inching slowly toward the point they may be able to secure their own borders. a final plea to my colleagues, and that's to my colleagues who are joining me in opposing this resolution, we are not going to succeed, i'm sure we are not going to succeed in afghanistan unless our civilian efforts are fully resourced. when i travel to afghanistan last april, i was encouraged to see our military forces,

diplomats, and development experts working closely together in the field. general petraeus couldn't have been more clear in his testimony. we are setting ourselves up for failure if we fully fund the clear part of the president's counterinsurgency strategy, the part carried out by the military, but shortchange the build portions of the strategy. like economic development and building good governance. these are the keys to lasting success in afghanistan. these are the keys to a successful counter insurgency strategy. and when we meet those tests and do those works, we may be able to create the environment that will allow our troops to return home. for all these reasons i oppose the resolution and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. jones: thank you, sir. before i yield time, i don't know why we'll be debating this

in 2015 or 2016, if i'm not here somebody else will be, that's how long we'll be there. this general that served in the marine corps that has advised me for 11 months back in november, i said what do you think about four more years? i'm going to read part of his email. i do not believe that 40 more years would guarantee victory, whatever that is. so four would do nothing. the war is costing money and lives all in short supply. like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for four minutes. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. chairman. and i rise in strong support of this resolution and first i want to thank the gentleman from north carolina for yielding me this time. i want to pay tribute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, who is one of the kindest, most sincere, and most courageous members that we have in this body. i voted, mr. chairman, for this war, but i sure didn't vote for a 10-year war or forever or permanent or endless war.

there's nothing fiscally conservative about this war, and i think conservatives should be the people most horrified by this war. the publisher of the conservative american spectator magazine wrote last october, quote, afghanistan has little strategic value and the war is one of choice rather than necessaryity. and he added that it's, quote, been a wasteful and frustrating decade. the worst thing about iraq and afghanistan, or certainly afghanistan, is both wars, really, the young people who have been killed, but also very sad, mr. chairman, that we spent hundreds of billions of dollars, in fact some estimates $2 trillion or $3 trillion now in direct and indirect costs to carry on these two unnecessary wars. our constitution does not give us the authority to run another country, and that's basically what we have been doing. we have been doing more nation building and more civilian functions than anything else. and we have been turning the

department of defense at least in iraq and afghanistan, we turned the department of defense into the department of foreign aid. i had a conservative republican elected official from my district in my office this past monday. his son is in afghanistan, army, and he said he asked his son recently what we were accomplishing. and he said, his son said, dad, we are accomplishing nothing. we seem to be making the same mistakes in our policies towards afghanistan that we made in iraq. even general petraeus has said some time ago we should never forget that afghanistan has been known as the, quote, graveyard of empires. george c. wilson, a military columnist for the congress daily, wrote a few months ago, the american military mission to pacify the tiny villages in afghanistan will look like mission impossible, especially if our bombings keep killing afghan civilians and infuriating the one who is survive.

the center for defense information said late last year, we have now spent $439.8 billion on war and war related costs in afghanistan and $1.631 billion -- trillion so far on the war in related costs in iraq. as i said a moment ago, these figures should astound fiscal conservatives. a syndicated columnist wrote a few years ago, critics of the war have said since the beginning of the conflict that americans still strangely complacent about overseas wars, being waged by minorities in their name. well inevitably come to a point where they see they have to have a government that provides services at home or one that seeks empires across the globe. i just finished, mr. chairman, a few months ago -- weeks ago doing field hearings around the country in relation to the transportation and highway bill. at each stop, these were done in oklahoma, arkansas, and west virginia, and west tennessee,

very conservative districts, and in each of those places i said, it is time we stop spending hundreds of billions on these unnecessary foreign wars and stop rebuilding in iraq and afghanistan and start rebuilding the united states of america. and each of those conservative districts, the people erupted into applause. only 31% of the american people, according to the latest abc poll that just came out think this war is still worth it. . william f. buckley, the conservative icon, wrote a few years ago he supported the war in iraq and then became disillusioned by it. he wrote these words, he said a respect for the power of the united states is engendered by our success in engagements in which we take part. a point is reached when tenacity can -- can i have 30 seconds more? >> i yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

mr. duncan: mr. buckley said, a point is reached when tenacity is not steadfastness of purpose but misapplication of pride. president karzai told abc news he wanted us to stay there another 15 or 20 more years. that's because he wants our money this war is more about money and power. every gigantic bureaucracy always wants more money but this war has gone too far and too long and i support this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves the plans of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on house cohn resolution 28. -- house con resolution 28. with that i yield two minutes

to mr. chabot. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. chabot: thank you, madam chair. thank you for your steadfast commitment to the men and women who gallantly serve our country on the battlefield. i rise in opposition to the resolution. first, let me get one argument out of the way. i've heard before some of my colleagues who support an american retreat from afghanistan describe this effort as a fiscal matter. i'd respond to that argument by stimply stating it's not a question of whether we can afford to fund a military presence in afghanistan, it's a matter of whether we can afford not to. particularly at this point. i think my colleagues know that i'm very uncomfortable spending taxpayer dollars without a solid justification and i match my fiscal conservative credentials with anybody in this body. but when it comes to national security and when it comes to the care and protection of our

troops in harm's way, we must not be, to use a phrase that you often hear on this floor, penny wise and pound foolish. further, premature withdrawal of american troops from the afghan theater would send a terrible message to both our friends and also to our adversaries, to our allies in the war on terrorism whom we would leave essentially twisting in the wind, to those 47 other nations that have joined the coalition in afghanistan, we would essentially be saying, good luck. you're on your own. not exactly what they had in mind when they joined us in this fight. of course to al qaeda and the taliban, whom we would embolden by adopting this ill-advised resolution, we would be providing once again the sanctuary which they enjoyed in afghanistan before our armed forces reversed their momentum. i don't often find myself in

agreement with president obama's policies but i did agree with him when he said a little more than a year ago, and i quote, i am convinced that our security is at stake in afghanistan and pakistan. this is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al qaeda. it is from here we were attacked on 9/11 and it is here that new attacks are being plotted as i speak. unquote. that was president obama. i also agree with general petraeus who said last week that, quote, our core objective in afghanistan, needless to say, is to ensure that the country does not become a sanctuary once again for al qaeda the way it was prior to 9/11. unquote. i know memories fade with time, but it's been not quite 10 years since 3,000 lives were lost on american soil. in new york, in pennsylvania, and just minutes from here down the street at the pentagon.

let's not forget what al qaeda did then and let's keep working to prevent it from happening again. let's not quit until the job is done. vote no on this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a report from the united nations that says they 2010 was the worst year for civilian casualties in afghanistan. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a report that says that nearly 3,000 civilians were killed last year in afghanistan. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to put into the record a report relating to the number of civilians killed, wounded and displaced. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to put into the record a report that the war has caused over $a 451 billion to

date. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to put into the record an article by a nobel prize winning economist in "the washington post" that says there's no question the iraq war added substantially to the federal debt. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frank: any suggestion that this is disrespectful of the sacrifice of our troops is nonsense. saying we don't want brave americans to continue in a very difficult situation in which they are at a great disadvantage and that in fact we would like to bring them home is no criticism of them at all. nothing undermine theirs ability to be there. there is a policy decision as to whether they should be there. my friend from washington, my friend from california have said, well, this isn't the right forum, parliamentaryly. my friend from washington said, yes, we should have a change in strategy, but not this way.

this is all we've got. right now, members have a choice. that's way this place is being run. either you vote for this resolution or you vote it down and you give an impolicist and in some cases explicit approval to the administration to stay there indefinitely. general petraeus said the other day he sees us jointly there with the afghans after 2014. there is some gain we could get in deterring terrorism there, although the notion that if we stop terrorism in afghanistan that's going to be the enof it. when there are unfortunately other places in the world so malia, sudan, yemen, elsewhere, we can't plug every hole in the world. in fact, this is an effort that having been tried for 10 years has not unfortunately looked to me like it's going to succeed. we're told, but this is important because we deterred an attack on europe. where are the europeans? the thing that most astounded me was when my friend from ohio, mr. chabot, said, what

about the 47 coalition partners. what about them? they're sitting this one out. they're pulling out. this is a virtually unilateral american action with a couple of flags we fly for a few other countries. some of them did have people there and they suffered casualties but they're all withdrawing, leaving us alone. let's talk about the cost of the war. the gentleman from ohio said it's not a fiscal issue. of course it is. this war costs us well over $100 billion a year. and you will -- we'll see americans die from a lack of police and fire and public safety here if you continue to run this futile war. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. jones: the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from -- the gentleman from north carolina. mr. jones: mr. speaker, i'm grateful we're having this debate on both sides that want to stay there for another four or five years versus those of us who would like to bring our troops home. i want to put a face on this debate, if i may, mr. speaker. this young man's name is tyler jordan from cincinnati, ohio. he is attending his father's funeral. he was a gunny sergeant, phillip jordan, who was killed for this country. a 6-year-old little boy. you can't see his eyes, but they hurt. they're pained. how many more tyler jordans are going to be wait naring daddy or mom to come home to be buried if we stay there four, five, six, or seven more years? that's what's been indicated by the leadership of the military and this administration.

how many more moms and dads and wives and husbands are going to be at dover air force base to receive the remains of their loved ones? that's why this debate is so important and why we need to have a date and a time to start bringing them home. my last poster, this absolutely handsome couple, the marine, worn out with ptsd, his beautiful wife katy and his little boy, last year at camp lejeune, he pulls his car over in the middle of the day and shoots himself in the head and kills himself. how many more will commit suicide? how many tyler jordans will not have their daddies coming home?

how many moms and dads and wives and husbands will be at dover to see those in a flag-draped coffin? i yield three minutes to the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. chaffetz: i'm going to be voting in favor of this amendment. the united states military is the greatest fighting force on the face of the planet. we could not be more proud of our troops who have served this country with such valor and such vigor. this is the longest war in the history of the united states of america. let there be no mistake, the global war on terror is real. it is very real. i reject the motion that polls should matter in any way, shape, or form in this debate. that's not how the united states operates. this is not how we decide whether or not we go to war or bring our troops home. i reject the notion that by bringing our troops home at

some point, which i consider to be victory, is somehow a pathway or paving a pathway to another 9/11. i think that's offensive. i think it's inaccurate. now in many ways, we've had success over the course of the years. let's understand that according to the national intelligence estimate, which has been printed in many newspapers, that the taliban pose no clear and present danger to the current afghan government nor do they pose a danger to the united states of america. further we've had our c.i.a. director state there are fewer than 50 al qaeda operatives in afghanistan. i think it should be the policy of the united states of america that if we send our troops to war, we go with everything we have. a politically correct war is a lost war. at the present time we are playing politics. we aren't going with everything we have. if we're serious about doing it, mr. president, you go with everything. and until this president attends more funerals than he

does rounds of golf, this person will be highly offended. we have to define the mission. the president of the united states has failed to define success in afghanistan. we are participating in the business of nation building. i reject that. we are supporting a government that's fundamentally corrupt and we all know it. it won't get us where we want to go. eastbound even -- even when i was in afghanistan visiting with general petraeus, he admitted they are using smaller rounds. again, we're trying to be more politically correct instead of protecting american lives. let me say that again terrorism is a global threat. we must use our forces around the world when there is a direct threat on the united states of america. that is not confined to the boundaries of afghanistan. it is happening globally and it is real. we have to deal with the threats in iran and not take our eye off the ball.

finally, i would say that our national tet is a clear and present danger to the united states of america and we must pay attention to that. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. the gentlelady in the balcony -- the chair notes a disturbance in the galley in contravention of the law and the rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will remove those person responseable for the disturbance and restore order to the gallery. the gentleman may continue. mr. fachets -- chaffetz: can i -- mr. chaffetz: can i inquire how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: she gentleman has 15 seconds. mr. jones: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. chaffetz: aaron, carlos,

michael, since i've been in office these are the gentlemen who have lost their lives in afghanistan. i honor them, i thank them. as i've talked to each of their parents, they want those rules of engagement changes and -- changed and they want to end the war in afghanistan with victory. with victory. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields his time. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. thornably, the chairman of the armed services subcommittee on armed threats and capabilities. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornably: -- mr. thornberry: we are just now getting the assets in place to make a difference in afghanistan that our troops and coalition partners are making a significant difference, the

process is fragile and reversible but it is enrble we keep it up because vital national interests are at stake. . i fear as time has passed over the last 10 years, it's all too easy to forget this country was attacked on 9/11 and that 3,000 americans lost their lives and we could come to the floor and hold up their pictures and the pictures of their children of those who were killed on that day terrorists. the attacks that were launched from afghanistan, that were planned in afghanistan, and directed from afghanistan. this congress at the time voted virtually unanimously that we would take military action to go make sure that afghanistan would no longer be used as a launching pad for attacks against us. and that from afghanistan people would no longer come here to kill americans. that's the reason we are still

there today and that is the purpose of our military actions there today. it's true that we may have a hard time plugging all the holes that could develop somewhere in the world where terrorists groups could squirt out to, but it is also true in my view that if we don't plug this hole, if we don't fulfill the mission that we have set out to fulfill in afghanistan, we are going to have more holes all over the world developing because people know that we are not serious about doing what we say and our security will be severely affected if that happens. there clearly have been ups and downs in our military efforts there just as there were iraq, but i believe that from general petraeus on down, we have our best. they deserve our support to fulfill the mission the country has given them. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a report

from the afghan study group that says that the current u.s. military effort is helping to fuel the insurgency we are attempting to defeat. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record an article that says that military commanders expect the united states to have a significant presence in afghanistan for another eight to 10 years. this according to a member of congress who was there. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a statement relating to a challenging of the claims of progress in afghanistan that i issued two days ago. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i am a senior member of the -- i have a senior member of the judiciary committee on the floor with me, the gentleman from california, mr. berman.

i don't see any other members on, but this is an important matter for the judiciary committee in that article 1, section 8 said overwhelm congress has the right to declare war. obviously we haven't declared war -- declared war in a he very long time. and -- in a very long time. so i think that we have to find out what is the constitutional basis that we are operating. i'll skip iraq. we all know that was based on false information promulgated from the president of the united states. but now getting to afghanistan, we find that we have a

resolution dating back to september 14, 2011. a use of force resolution. but that has expired by any rational investigation of it. it was designed to respond to the 9/11 terrorist attack and to fight al qaeda, but today we are in afghanistan on a long-term effort at rebuilding the nation. nation building is unrelated to that original resolution, and now we are in afghanistan. an unlawful incursion into pakistan. and so -- could i get a little more time?

mr. kucinich: i yield the gentleman an additional half minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 0 seconds. mr. conyers: so now we are in pakistan and the c.i.a. is operating covert combat activities there and those are unlawful. we are violating the unup charter -- u.n. charter which we have -- which we are supposed to be a leader in. and so the obama administration is carrying on the same military operations -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: may i inquire how much time remains on the time allotted to me? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 22 minutes remaining.

mr. berman: i would like to take eight of those 22 minutes and yield -- and ask that be yielded to the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burton: i thank the gentleman. mr. berman: mr. burton is now controlling the time of that majority. mr. burton: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from california reserve his time? mr. berman: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: i just want to take a couple of minutes to talk about one point. the majority party, that part of the majority party that is urging the same position i am on this resolution, which is a no

vote, has made the argument a number of times that when you're dealing with fundamental issues of national security, you spend money even under difficult times. a point that i have no disagreement with. and they argue the issue of what the alternatives will be and the potential for providing safe havens for terrorists or more safe havens for terrorists or a return of afghanistan as a safe haven for terrorists if we pass this resolution. i don't disagree with that point. but what i find upsetting about the majority's position is their denial of the fundamental point, they quote general petraeus for

every position that they find philosophically and factually satisfying, and ignore general petraeus and secretary gates on the fundamental concept of how we hope to change the course of what's happening in afghanistan, because if we don't change it then we have to come and address the fundamental question of what we are doing there. through counter insurgency strategy. so we talk about clear and hold, that it is the military jobs to clear and time to hold. but build is fundamentally a civilian program. general petraeus over and over again has said this conflict in afghanistan, cannot be won unless we strengthen the governance of a very flawed government in afghanistan,

unless we provide economic opportunity for that society to progress, and win the hearts and minds of the people of afghanistan to the cause for which we are fighting, and it's also in view of afghanistan is it's isolated from the rest of the world. i can go through countries around the world, failed states, nearly failing states, terrible problems which are certainly becoming safe harbors for terrorism. and so when the same party that makes a strong case for our national security interests here , at the same time passes legislation which slashes every aspect of efforts to strengthen governance and development assistance and to provide the kinds of opportunities that serve our national security

interests, i find it a strange kind of logic and a flaw in their approach to this. i understand the economic hardships we have. and if anyone wanted to look at the foreign assistance budget and take specific things that aren't working and get rid of them, i understand that. if one wanted to make proportional cuts in foreign assistance budget, but to come with the argument of we have to cut spending and then disproportionately focus on that aspect of our national security strategy, which will do a tremendous amount and will be fundamental to any effort to stop there from being safe harbors for terrorism, that is to massively slash disproportion foreign assistance, it's a terrible mistake, it terribly undermines the national security strategy that we are trying to achieve -- achieve through our operations and our presence, and the money we are spending in afghanistan. it's not thinking, i think, as

clearly as needs to be thought. i'd urge those in the majority to think about about -- again about how much of the cuts we need to make should be coming from that part of the budget that constitutes 1% of the federal budget. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. jones: i'd like to ask unanimous consent that i could present to the record the latest quote from mr. karzai that i'd like to read. the gentleman from california i have great respect for him in many, many ways. we talk about we got to enhance the governance of afghanistan. this is his quote, march 12, 2001. i submit it before. i request that nato and america should stop these operations on our soil, karzai said, this war

is not on our soil. if this war is against terror. this war is not here. terror is not here. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin, the vice chair of the foreign affairs subcommittee on europe andure asia and an iraq war veteran who continues to serve as a major in the u.s. army reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. griffith: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in opposition to h.con.res. 28 because it would undermine our national security and our ability to keep us safe right here at home. i understand that many americans are frustrated with the length of this war. i also understand the american people have demanded the u.s. government get its fiscal house in order. i know we cannot afford to fund this war indefinitely, but some think that cutting and running

immediately from afghanistan is a solution. that's simply not an option. this is a reckless resolution. we have made progress in afghanistan and we cannot afford to abandon that progress by immediately withdrawing our troops. what we must do, however, is demand our military and civilian leaders set clear and definable goals for our military efforts in afghanistan. we also must listen to our military commanders who are there on the ground day in and day out. general petraeus has testified to our military substantial progress in impeding the taliban's influence and increasing the number of afghan security forces. he cautioned, however, that this recent success is fragile and reversible. we must allow our troops to remain in afghanistan to defeat the taliban and al qaeda so we can keep americans safe here. we must continue to train and support local security forces because this will bring about

the safe and successful transition of the country's security to the afghan people. to withdraw now, to withdraw immediately would be to forfeit that progress and allow the taliban and other extremists to regain their footing in afghanistan. we must honor the men and women of our armed fors who have fought so hard. we must honor the men and women of the international armed forces who have fought so hard and honor the men and women of the afghan forces who have fought hard to defend their own country. they have sacrificed so much. we cannot abandon them now. most importantly, it is not in our national security to do so. . thank youened a-- and i yield back the bland of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady reserve her time? ms. ros-lehtinen: i to and i thank mr. berman for giving us eight minutes of his time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: could i ask how

much time each group here has. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the gentlewoman from florida controls 22 minutes. the gentleman from ohio controls 22 minutes. the gentleman from california controls 9 1/2 minutes. and the gentleman from north carolina controls 16 minutes. mr. kucinich: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: members of this house are talking about cutting $100 billion from the budget. we can trim the federal budget of more than $100 billion in out of control spending. members have been very concerned about out of control spending. they're calling for reduction in the federal budget. cutting spending on the war in afghanistan would solve their concerns. spending on the war is greater han the minimum amount of

federal spending certain members believe must be cut from the budget for fiscal responsibility. in the fiscal year 12 budget requests, the president requested $114 billion to continue the war. in fact, congressional appropriations of over $100 billion for the afghanistan war are the rule in recent years. as we've seen, there's talk of extending the war for another 10 years. $1 trillion, perhaps? spending on the afghanistan war has increased much faster than overall government spending in recent years. consider a comparison of the average annual rates of growth of government spending versus the afghanistan war spending, 2008 through 2011. i yield myself 10 more seconds. overall, government spending has increased 9%, 2008 through 2011, but afghanistan war spending has increased 25%. you want to save $100 billion, then vote for this resolution.

i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. filner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. filner: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. filner: mr. kucinich, i thank you for your courage in bringing this debate to the floor. it's like the 600 pound elephant in the nation, this war has gone on and we never discuss about it. i want to applaud the courage of mr. jones of north carolina he has taken more than a lot of grief from his own party and he has stood up to that with a courage that is admirable and we all admire you, mr. jones. i want to look at this debate, my colleagues, from the point of view of the former chairman of the veterans committee which i had the honor to serve. mr. kucinich, i think you underestimate the cost of this war.

i've never seen you so conservative, mr. kucinich. i had a hearing last year before the veterans committee in which a nobel prize winning economist, joe stevens, testified. he said the wars in iraq and afghanistan are a $5 trillion to $7 trillion war over the course of them being carried out and let us not forget, and that's not calculated in your savings, mr. kucinich, the veterans. those who have served in this war with great courage, great professionalism, treating these veterans costs hundreds of billions of thrars more. and we're not considering that when we talk about ending this war. you know, we've been told that there are about 45,000 casualties in these two wars in the last 10 years. then why have almost one million people shown up at the

veterans administration hospitals for war-related injuries. a million. this is not a rounding error. this is a deliberate attempt to misguide us on the cost of the war. the war is costing, in addition to what the budget said, tens an even hundreds of billions more for treating our veterans. we must calculate that into the cost of the war. when you guys say deficit and debt, we're going to say afghanistan. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. jones: mr. speaker, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rohrabacher: here's someone

who says billions of dollars and afghanistan both. i rise in support of the resolution and in support of our military personnel who are putting their lives in jetchar diin afghanistan. -- in jeopardy in afghanistan. they are doing their duty for us, for which every american should be eternally grateful. now we must do our duty to them. if our military is engaged in a dangerous mission that we believe cannot be successful but for face saving we are keeping them there, we are doing a disservice to our defenders and to our nation. the people of afghanistan are as courageous and independent as any on earth. they are indomitable and unconquerable. a lesson invaders have learned the hard way for centuries. the liberation of after began tan pr the taliban was accomplished not by a massive

influx of american troops, but instead by fighters of the northern alliance militias and the air support we provided them. it was a tremendous success. when they were doing the fighting, it was a success. when we try to do the fighting all over the world, we lose. we cannot be a nation that occupies the rest of the world. we cannot be a country that sends its troops all over the world to handle every problem. our foreign policy bureaucracy, however, after the great success of eliminating the taliban from afghanistan, our foreign policy bureaucracy, not our troops, set in place a government structure totally inconsistent with the village and tribal culture of the afghan people. that is no surprise or information to anybody. most of us understand that.

they have a tribal culture there in afghanistan and a village system, that's what works for them. our state department has tried to foist upon them a centralized system which they don't even elect provincial governors. our troops are there now after they were liberated from the taliban by afghans, our troops are there to force the afghan people to accept an overly centralized and corrupt system put in place by our state department bureaucracy. i'm sorry, it won't work. it will not work. any attempt to sub jew gate pose people and force them -- to subjugate these people and force them to acquiesce to our vision of afghanistan will fail. if it will fail, we know that that tactic won't ski. to keep our troops over there any longer is simple, it's a disservice to our country.

it's a disservice to those young men and women who give up their leg and their lives for afghanistan. mr. jones: the gentleman is -- i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: it is up to us to defend those men and women in uniform who are giving up their lives to accomplish something that can't be accomplish the most responsible course of action is to as quickly as possible get our people out of this predicament, not to dig us in deeper and not to wait until this bloody quagmire kills even more americans and we have to leave without success. if we can't win, we should pull them out now and we can't. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman from north carolina reserve? mr. jones: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to a

gentleman who knows a lot about the threats facing our nation, the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers, the chairman of the house permanent select committee on intelligence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. a lot of power and emotion in this debate today. i'm glad for that. there should be. i recall the first time i had a chance to get to afghanistan in late 2003. i met a woman there who had been trained as a doctor in the united states, she went to practice medicine in her home country of afghanistan, when the taliban took over, they stripped her of her medical duties an sent her home, she was imprisoned in her own home. for six years. i met her at a children's hospital and in the days of the first conflict, the stripped off her burka and walked 10 miles to the first town to provide medical care for the first time to these children as a woman in afghanistan. with tears in her eyes she

said, thank you. these children have no chance, afghanistan has no future. you know, we saw the soccer field where they took people down and summarily executed them for violations they deemed to be executeable offenses under no law but their own. the bushed buses where the modern conveniences were burned to get them out of the system when the taliban took over to apply sharia law. none of that would matter from the pain and loss if you've attended one of these fine soldier's funerals, it is an emotional thing, there's pain and hurt and sorrow an something lost in all of us. none of those other things would be alone a reason to send our soldiers to risk their lives in defense of this country. but because of the things i talked about because of what they have imprisoned women in afghanistan, because of the things they've done to the people there, it created hate and ignorance and brutality.

and al qaeda saw an advantage and they took it. they established there a safe haven where they recruited, where they financed, where they planned, where they armed themselves, where they recruited people arn the world from other countries to come, to train, and they sent some of them to the united states of america to slaughter 3,000 people and if you want to talk about money, the trillion-plus dollars that 9/11 has cost us just in economic loss, that's why they're there. we should not forget the mission today and why they risk their lives. if you want to talk about the state department policies, i'm all in. i'd love to have that debate. if you want to talk about rules of engagement, i'm in. that's a place. let's do it. let's have that debate. but if you want to tell the enemy today, and fwi the way, for the first time, we've got information that their commanders are say, we don't want to go fight. the spring offensive is being

planned now. right now. our soldiers are preparing for battle right now. this may be that last great battle in afghanistan on behalf of our soldiers to eliminate the major components of the taliban taking over their country. it could be the thing that breaks -- can i get an additional 30 seconds? ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> if the tears of that woman doesn't move you, if the pain of the soldier who gave it all for this country doesn't move you, what ought to move you is the fact that these folks are gearing up, opening and -- hoping and praying we give up and pull these troops out were the mission is done. mr. rogers: we want them home. we want them home with no safe haven and a way we continue to put pressure on al qaeda and its supporting affiliates. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

does the gentlewoman from florida reserve her time? ms. ros-lehtinen: yes, i'm sorry, mr. speaker, i do reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record an article by tom inglehart which discusses the open-ended nature of the afghanistan war. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i yield to myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: we keep coming back to 9/11. we're near the eighth anniversary of the invasion of iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, and which was predicated on a lie. no weapons of mass destruction. the war in iraq, or the war in

afghanistan is based on a misreading of history. the soviet union understood that at hard cost. the occupation is fueling an insurgency. now, jeremy scale in the nation points out that taliban leaders have said they've seen a swelling in taliban ranks since 9/11 in part attributed to the widely held perception that the karzai government is corrupt and illegitimate and that afghans, primarily ethnic pashtuns want foreign occupations out. we're fighting to make foreigners leave afghanistan. occupation fuels insurgency. that is the ironclad fact. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms.

lee. ms. lee: thank you very much. mr. speaker the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: i rise in support of this resolution of which i am a proud co-sponsor. i want to thank representative kucinich for his continued support. i want to commend congressman jones for his leadership on this issue and so many other issues. this resolution is simple and straightforward. it directs the president to end the near duke aid-long war in -- decade-long war in afghanistan and deploy troops from afghanistan by the end of this year. al qaeda is not in afghanistan, and osama bin laden still has not been found. this resolution comes at a time when a growing number members of congress, military and foreign policy experts and in particular the american people are calling for an immediate end to this war. enough is enough. let me just say something.

first of all, we've heard that -- polls are showing that nearly 3/4 of the american public favor action to speed up u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan. yes, the congress authorized the use of force in 2001 which i voted against because it gave the president, any president a blank check to use force anytime, anyplace, anywhere in the world for any period of time. it was not a declaration of war. yet, this has been the longest war in american history, the longest war in american history. as the daughter of a 25-year army officer who served two -- excuse me -- in two wars, let me salute our troops, let me honor our troops and just say our service men and women have performed with incredible courage and commitment in afghanistan. but they have been put in an

impossible situation. it's time to bring them home. there is no military solution in afghanistan. as we fight here in congress to protect investments in education, health care, public health and safety, the war in afghanistan will cost more than $100 billion in 2011 alone. may i have another 30 seconds? mr. kucinich: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. lee: no one can deny that this is contraining our part in creating jobs. a letter was sent to president obama to withdraw troops from afghanistan no later than july of this year. this debate we are having here should have occurred in 2005 when congress authorized a blank check. it was barely debated. and the rush to war has created

not less anger but more hostility. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. lee: it's not in our national security nor in our economic interest to continue. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. kucinich: i want to point out that for those members who are concerned about the finances of this government, u.s. debt soared from $6.4 trillion in march, 2003, to $10 trillion. and joseph, nobel prize-winning economist and his associate, linda belmitz, pointed out that at least a quarter of that increase is directly attributable to the war in iraq. as a result of two costly wars funded by debt, our fiscal house was in dismal shape, even before the financial crisis, and those fiscal woes compounded the downturn. the global financial crisis was

due at least in part -- this is a quote -- to the war. now, they continue, the iraq war didn't just contribute to the severity of the fiscal crisis, though. it kept us from responding to it effectively. so, my friends, war is a financial security issue. i yield a minute to mr. welch, a minute and a half to mr. welch from vermont. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, my colleagues on the other side, america does have a national security interest in protecting american citizens from terrorist attacks. but the question before us is, is that national security interest being served by 10 years of nation building in the third most corrupt country in the entire world? is our national security

interest being served by sending 100,000 troops and $454 billion in taxpayers' money to a country where there are 50 members of al qaeda? is it a winning and likely successful strategy when al qaeda simply moves where we aren't? they move out of afghanistan into pakistan, to sudan, to wherever they can find a safe haven. does it make sense to ask our soldiers and our taxpayers to sacrifice when our afghan partner is so profoundly corrupt? and i mean world-class corrupt. $3 billion in palates of cash moved out of the kabul airport to safe havens for warlords. an afghan president who flies to dubai with $200 million in walking around money. when the u.s.-backed afghan major crimes unit tries to get

karzai to act on corruption and karzai gets his buddy out of jail. yes, we have a national security interest in protecting america from attack, but this is a losing strategy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kucinich: i yield a minute and a half to the gentlelady from new york, ms. velazquez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for 90 seconds. ms. velazquez: yes, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. velazquez: i rise in strong support of this resolution. after 10 long years, $336 billion spent, 1,500 american lives lost and thousands named, it is time to bring our troops home. our service men and women and their coalition allies have performed vehemently. the united states has done everything possible to provide opportunity for the afghanistan people and the chance for the

democratic government there to mature and take hold. afghanistan must now take responsibility for its own destiny. the fact of the matter is this, if now is not the time to leave then when? afghanistan has become the longest war in u.s. history with a price tag of $100 billion a year. at a time when we are contemplating cutting services for seniors, education of programs for children and tuition assistance for working college students, that money could be spent more wisely elsewhere. mr. speaker, too much of our country's treasure has gone toward this war, but more importantly, the cost in human life, american and afghan, has been enormous. as the world's greatest democracy, what kind of message does this war send to our other

nations? do as we say, not as we do? it is time to make our actions reflect our words. get out of afghanistan now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. kucinich: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. jones: at this time i yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. paul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman and, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. paul: the question we're facing today is, should we leave afghanistan? i think the answer is very clear and it's not complicated. of course we should. as soon as we can. this suggests that we can leave by the end of the year. if we don't we'll be there for another decade, would be my prediction. the american people are now with us. a group of us here in the

congress, bipartisan group, for nearly a decade have been talking about this, arguing not to expand the war, not to be over there, not to be a nation building and the american people didn't pay much attention. now they are. the large majority of the american people now say it's time to get out of afghanistan. it's a fruitless venture. too much has been lost. the chance of winning since we don't know what we're going to win doesn't exist so they are tired of it. financially there's a good reason to come home as well. some argue we have to be there because if we leave under these circumstances we'll lose faith. it will look embarrassing to leave. so how many more men and women have to die? how many more dollars has to be spent to save face? that's one of the worst arguments possible. we're not there under legal conditions. this is a war. who says it isn't a war? everybody talks about the afghan war.

was the war declared? of course not it wasn't declared. there was a resolution passed that said the president at that time under the emergency of 9/11 could go and deal with al qaeda, those who dealt and brought upon the 9/11 bombings. but al qaeda's not there anymore. so we're fighting the taliban. the taliban used to be our allies at one time when the soviets were there. taliban wants -- their main goal is to keep foreign occupationers out. they want foreigners out of their country. they are not al qaeda. yet, most americans, maybe less so now, but the argument's -- but the arguments here on the floor is we have to go al qaeda. it gives incentive for al qaeda to grow in numbers rather than dealing with them. the money issue. we're talking about a lot of money. how much do we spend in a year? probably about $130 billion, up to $1 trillion now in this past

decade. later on in the day we are going to have two votes. we're going to have a vote on doing something sensible, making sense out of our foreign policy, bringing our troops home and saving hundreds of billions of dollars. and then we also will have a vote against n.p.r., to cut the funding of n.p.r. there is a serious question about whether that will even cut one penny but at least the fiscal conservatives will be overwhelmingly in support of slashing n.p.r., go home and brag about how they're so great fiscal conservatives. in the very most they'll save $10 million and that's the claim for fame of cutting the budget. at the same time they won't consider cutting a real significant amount of money. allem pires end -- all empires end for fiscal reasons, because they spread themselves too far around the world. we are in the midst of a military conflict that's

contributing to this inevitable crisis and it's financial, and you think that there would be a message in the fact of, how did the soviets come down? by doing the very same thing that we're doing, perpetual occupation of a country. we don't need to be occupying afghanistan or any other country. we don't even need to be considering going into libya or anywhere else. fortunately, for those that would like to see less of the killing, we will have to quit because we won't be able to afford it. the process that we're going through is following the war powers resolution. this is a proper procedure. it's call attention to how we slip into these wars. i've always claimed it's a way we get into the wars that's a problem. if we would be precise and only go to war with a declaration of war, get with the people behind this, knowing who the enemy is and fight, win and get it over with, that would be more

legitimate. they don't do it now because the american people wouldn't support it. nobody is going to declare a war against afghanistan or iraq or libya. so we now have been so careless for the past 50 or 60 years that we have as a congress and especially the house we have reneged on our responsibilities. we have avoided our prerogatives by saying we have the control. we have control of the purse. we have control of when we are supposed to go to war and yet the wars continue. they never stop and yet we are going to be completely brought down to our knees. we can't change afghanistan. people who are bragging about these changes, you know, even if you could you're not supposed to. you don't have the moral authority. you don't have the constitutional authority. so i would say the sooner -- the sooner -- mr. jones: 30 more seconds. mr. paul: i would say the sooner the better. we can come home, this process

-- under the law it says you should start bringing troops home within 30 days. this allows up to the end of the year after this would be passed. but this needs to be done. a message needs to be sent, and someday we have to wake up and say, if you are a fiscal conservative you ought to eliminate the waste. this is military kenesianism. this is a day to be on record and vote for this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman reserve the balance of his time? does the gentleman -- mr. jones: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i'm so honored to yield to the gentleman from california, mr. hunter, a member of the armed services keb and a distinguished combat veteran who has served our country honorably in iraq and afghanistan with the united states marine corps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes.

mr. hunter: first, i was in the marine corps, i did two tours in iraq, one in afghanistan. i didn't do anything exceptional. if anyone else has served in afghanistan, i'll yield to you right now. if anyone in this congress has served in a military exatsity in these wars in afghanistan, i'll be happy to yield to you. you might have taken a few trips over, you may talk about families you know who are impacted, you can talk about those marines and soldiers and sailors and those we see injured, but if you want to quote somebodiering quote me. if you want to talk about a family impacted by three deployments, two of my kids, two of them have been through three deployments my youngest child has been through one deployment afghan deployment in 2007. if you want to talk to somebody, feel free to talk to

my family. they understand what it's like they also understand the reason we're there. less than 2% of america's population serves. the bud of afghanistan is on their shoulders, on my family's shoulders. they know what's at stake. that's why they allowed me to do it. they allowed me to go to iraq and afghanistan because of the number one reason we're there. it's not to nation build but to make sure that radicalized muslims stop killing americans. it's to stop them from detroying this country. they want to murder us. every single person in this room, every american, radicalized muslims want to murder. that's why we have men and women over there fighting. that's it. there's no other reason for it. nation building is a -- it's a thing we have to do there on the side to get the people, the afghan people on our side, but what we're doing right now is we're taking out the enemy. we have to trust general petraeus.

we have to trust president obama, in this case, that they know what's going on. he's the command for the chief, not us. we are not the commanders in chief. there's one of them and it's the other side's president. with that, once more, if you want to quote -- ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hunter: if you want to quote somebody who's been there quote me. if you want to hold up pictures of families, hold up pub chicks of mine. they've been impacted by it. i thank the gentleman from ohio for bringing up this debate because what has happened is our side has cut defense by $16 billion in h.r. 1. if we're not going to support our troops while we're fighting this type of resolution might need a look at later, i don't think now is the right time. with that, i oppose the resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all members are reminded that all remarks should be addressed to the chair and through the chair and not to each other. the gentleman from ohio is

recognized. mr. kucinich: i thank the speaker. how much time does each individual involved in this have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has 10 1/2 minutes. the gentlelady from florida has 16 minutes. the gentleman from california has 9 1/2 minute. and the gentleman from north carolina has seven minutes. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to place into the record a report from the defense health board that says that more of our soldiers are coming home this year with amputations than in previous years. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous con sent to put into the record a recent report from "the washington post" that says that we've seen the steepest

increase in lost limbs among soldiers and marines occurring in the last four months. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to put in the record a report if the "american conservative" which says that late last year, i.e.d. deaths among our own soldiers were up, not down. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, representative jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from ohio. i respect my president, our president, i thank the previous speaker for his service. i thank all of the united states military at home and abroad for their brave and courageous service. i beg to differ. the constitution indicates that the congress can declare war, which has not been so declared. i would make the argument that we have shed our blood in afghanistan and my hat is off to those families who have lost their loved ones and certainly

those who fight on the front lines today. i believe it is important for congress to be engaged in this effort because this is the people's house. a few months ago, a year ago, i may not have supported this move but here we are again fatesing the same obstacles. this amendment, resolution, says within 30 days but up to december 31 if necessary. it is time now to push the kabul government to be able to negotiate and engage, it's time to use smart power. it is time to let girls go to school, let leaders lead and for our combat troops and others to come home. it is time to recognize that our resources are needed a -- around the world. libya is in need. it is time for us to end with afghanistan and push them to be a sovereign nation and work with them on dime pleau macy and be able to cey lives. i support this resolution and i wish that it would pass now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves.

mr. kucinich: i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to the longest running war in our nation's history. i want to thank my friend and colleague from ohio for introducing this resolution. war is not the answer. it is not the way to peace. we must rule out the causes of hate and violence. gandhi once said power is of two kinds, one is attained by the fear of punishment, and the other by acts of love. power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent than one derived from the fear of punishment. our path to peace in afghanistan is not through war. it is not through violence. enough is enough.

the time is long overdue. we are spending billions of dollars a week, not another nickel, not another dime, not another dollar, not another hour, not another day, not another week, we must end this war and end it now. i urge my colleagues to support the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield one minute to mr. powers of colorado. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. -- mr. polis of colorado. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: intelligence estimates are there are under 50 al qaeda operatives in afghanistan. there is a real terrorist threat to our country that

comes from the loosely knit al qaeda terrorist network. but that does not emanate from afghanistan or from any one nation state. it's a stateless menace. they go wherever they're able to thrive on the lack of order. to effectively combat this menace, we need targeted special operations, afwressive intelligence gathering and we need to combat this me nass wherever they are. being bogged down, occupying one particular nation state is a waste of resources and not the best way to keep the american people safe. i strongly support this resolution and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. jones: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

>> i rise in support of the resolution and again with great respect and concern for those people who we are sending overseas to defend us. if we don't think they can succeed, it is incumbent on us to bring them home as soon as possible. mr. rohrabacher: i was not in the united states military in afghanistan but i did participate in a battle in afghanistan when the russians were there. i went in with the mujahideen unit and fought in the battle of jallalabad in 1988. i got to know the people of afghanistan. form troops will never conquer the people of afghanistan. and yes, radicalized islams did murder americans at 9/11. by the way, most of them were saudis. most of all of them who hijacked those planes were

saudis. saudi still has the radical islamic tenets that we're talking about that supposedly brought us into this battle. we will not succeed if we are planning to force the afghan people to accept the centralized government that our state department has foisted upon them. all we're here to do is lose more people. all we're going to do is have more wounded people and more of our military sent over there because that's what they're telling us is the method of getting out. you get out, you have to have karzai accepted. we have foisted on them the most centralized system of government that would never even work here because we believe that local people should run the police and should elect their own local officials. if we don't believe that this system will work, and that's our plan, we should get our people out of there before more people are killed and maimed and yes we do respect duncan hunter and all those people who have served. that's the reason, that's what motivates me. we've got walter jones who

represents the marine corps down at camp lejeune. if they thought they were defending our cupry and were going to save our lives, all of them would give their lives for us. but they're not on that mission. they're on that mission to get the afghan people and coerce them into accepting a corrupt central government. and that won't work. it didn't work when i was there fight the russians, it won't work now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. with all due respect to the gentleman from california, i would not compare a staff delegation trip to the valiant forces of our armed forces who are fighting overseas. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california -- colorado, mr. coffman, a combat vet van of the first war -- veteran of the first world war. after that, i will recognize two other members.

mr. coffman: i thank the gentlewoman from florida and i thank the gentleman from ohio for bringing this resolution forward and i reck luck -- reluctantly rise in opposition to it. i volunteered to serve in iraq not because i believed that invading, pacifying and administering the country was the right course of action but i believed that once we had made the commitment, that we had to follow it through and bring it to a reasonable and just conclusion. in afghanistan, i think that what this nation first did was brilliant. that we were attacked in 9/11, the taliban controlled much of the country, gave safe harbor to al qaeda, and we gave air, logistical and advisory support and they pushed the taliban out. we made a wrong turn after that by forcing them aside, the victors on the ground aside instead of using our leverage to have them reach out to to

the pashtun elements of the country and superimmissouried -- superimposed a political process on them that doesn't fit the country, a government that's mired in corruption, has little capacity to govern outside of kabul. i believe it is wrong to use conventional forces against an irregular forces that make our military vulnerable to asymmetric capability but we have security interests in afghanistan that we must accept. we need to make sure that the taliban don't take over the country where it becomes a permissive environment where they can use that to destabilize afghanistan to assist the taliban on the other side of the line. we need some base of operations in afghanistan to be able to strike al qaeda targets in the federally administered tribal areas of afghanistan. i believe that we can do it with a lighter footprint.

i think we ought to be focused on supporting factions within this region that share our strategic interests. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. coffman: we have strategic interests in afghanistan, it would be wrong, it would be irresponsible at this time to expeditiously withdraw all our forces from afghanistan again without recognizing our strategic interests there, though i differ on the strategy that we're using right now. i recognize the security interests of the united states that are vital for us to maintain not only peace and stability in the region but also at home. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, a member of the armed services, intelligence, agriculture and ethics

committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. conaway: i rise in opposition to this motion. general petraeus tells a poignant story. 17 troops were killed. really one of his darkest days. the emotion of all of that and the trauma and the fight to move forward, a young p.f.c. came up to this two-star general, which is odd, and said, general, i know of 17 reasons why we have to get this right. that analogy can be spread out of all of the lives lost, all of the grievous injuries that we suffered it in this war over the last 10 years in afghanistan. we have to get this right. this motion they brought forward is not remotely going to get it right. whatever your position is, they is not the right thing to do. we should not do this.

these conversations have consequences. they are heard around the world. and while the other side, the folks who will vote for this, the folks who brought this forward have a right to do this and in their mind perhaps an obligation to have these conversations. these conversations affect the men and women in the fight. to stand over here and say they can't win, they cannot make this happen is irresponsible on our part. david petraeus, the man who knows more about what's going on the ground in afghanistan today than anybody walking the face of the earth -- in all deference to the people that served 20 years ago, that is 20 years. today, david petraeus said the strategy is correct. we have the inputs correct. we are moving forward and we can make this -- circumstances -- get the end resultes that we want and which the afghan people in charge of afghanistan, responsible for afghan security. this resolution is incorrect. it will not get it right, and i strongly urge a no vote on this

resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. conaway. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, judge poe, vice chair on the committee of oversight and investigations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. war is expensive and it should not be measured in the cost of money which has been really the discussion today. i have the greatest respect for mr. jones and mr. rohrabacher and you, too, mr. kucinich, but this is an important issue before us. today as we are here in the house of representatives, mark wells is being buried. he was killed on march 5 representing us in iraq -- excuse me -- afghanistan. he had been to iraq and, yes, he is of irish heritage so his family decided we want to have his service on st. patrick's

day. i talked to his father, burrell, earlier this week, and he's proud of his son's service and he's proud of his -- our service in afghanistan. he said to me, he said, congressman poe, i fear there are dark days ahead for america because we may not choose to persevere. and what he meant by that was that his son and others who have died for this country, died for that concept of freedom, that people that live after them, our soldiers that are over there and we who make decisions may not persevere and finish this war. war is hard. it is expensive and america never quits and america should never quit in this war. our enemies in iraq and afghanistan have always had the policy and philosophy, america

will get weary, americans will quit, they don't have the stomach for it. and we need to send the message to them and the rest of the world and to our troops who are on the front lines today that we will support them and we will not get weary, we will not quit, we will not give in or give up just because this war has been long, and that's just the way it is. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i'd like to reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i would like to put in the record an article from "the national interest" which states many west and western troops cannot leave their bases without seeing i.e.d.'s. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record

from cato liberties website entitled america's aimless absurdity in afghanistan. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to put into the record an article from "truth date" entitled "afghanistan: on scenely well funded, rages out of sight from the american public." the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: i ask to put in the record an article by nick tourist and tomdispatch.com. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: general petraeus and others in the administration continue their p.r. campaign. overwhelming evidence their upbeat assessments of our strategy is false. a recent article by "the los angeles times" cite cited a report released by the british parliament that concluded that despite the optimistic

appraises we heard from some military officials, the security situation across afghanistan as a whole is deteriorating. counterinsurgency efforts in the south and east have allowed the taliban to expand its presence and control in other previously relatively stable areas in afghanistan, unquote. i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. charles rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. rangel: this afternoon sometime i will reintroduce my bill calling for a mandatory draft, making certain that every young person has an opportunity one way or the other to serve this great nation of ours. whether we're talking about in our schools, our hospitals or just to provide some public service. but the main part of this bill is that the president, when he asked us to declare war, when

we get involved in these with loss of life, we have people to come to the well and explain how we have to get involved, we have to fight, we can't give up, to see if their kids or grandchildren were mandated they would have to go into these areas and put them self's -- themselves in harm's way how soon we will look at this. let me congratulate mr. kucinich by allowing our priests, our rabbis recognizing human lives being lost because of our concern about oil in this part of the oil. it hasn't got a darn thing to do with our national security, and i just hope and pray that one day we will be able to say we know we made a mistake and withdrawal from this type of thing now and for the future of this great country. thank you for this opportunity. mr. kucinich: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves

the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. does the gentleman from california reserve the balance of his time? mr. berman: he does. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. jones: i reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett, the chairman of the armed services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. barton: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. -- mr. bartlett: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bartlett: if our only reason to be in afghanistan was to deny sanctuary to al qaeda i probably would have asked time from mr. kucinich and be speaking from the other side. because when we are successful in afghanistan that will not have denied sanctuary to al qaeda because they will simply go into pakistan. if not there they'll go to yemen and somalia. if we left pakistan now or -- i'm sorry, afghanistan -- we

will have sent a message to the world that their suspicions is really true, that all you have to do to the united states is make it tough for them and they'll pull out. we did in in beirut and somalia. it's absolutely essential that we win here or our confidence will be gone forever in terms of geopolitical things of the world. if we can have a fledgling democracy there, that will send a very powerful message to the middle east in which moist of the world's oil comes -- most of the world's oil comes. a lot of our people there. a stable democracy in afghanistan would be enormously important. beyond denying sanctuary to al qaeda, there are very good reasons for staying in afghanistan until we have victory. our young people there are doing an incredible job. i just came from over there a week ago. i think we must succeed for the two reasons that i just mentioned and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i'm honored to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. gibson, a member of the armed services committee and a decorated combat veteran who ended his 24-year military career as a colonel in the united states army. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gibson: i thank the lady. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in opposition to the resolution. i served in iraq when it was hard and unpopular. and i thank god that i live in a country that had the intestinal fortitude to see it through. you know, this year we're going to complete our objectives in iraq and the remaining 48,000 troops that are there are going to come home. it will be a small contingent. about 150 or so that will move underneath the embassy, but we will have completed our objectives and iraq will be stable and friendly. now, afghanistan is different from iraq, but our approach should be similar. the surge has accomplished its primary aim, to seize the

initiative from the taliban, but now we need to finish the job of building out the institution, the security and the civil institutions. i'm recently back from afghanistan, and i had an opportunity to meet the leadership there. i feel confident we got the right plan going forward, and i support the president's plan. the president's plan to begin withdrawal this year and to complete combat operations by 2014 because i believe this plan will stabilize afghanistan and help protect our cherished way of life, preventing al qaeda from regaining sanctuary. now, going forward i think we need to learn from these experiences. some comments made here earlier about us whether or not we were a public or an empire. i share those concerns and those sentiments. we are a republic and we need to learn from these experiences, but we need to see this through, we need to stand with our commander in chief, we need to stand with our troops, complete this task and then finally let me say that i join

all today on both sides of the aisle who honor our service men and women who have fell in the line of battle. we pray for their souls. we pray for their families. we remember those wounded in battle, those who bear physical scars, those who bear no physical scars are emotionally scarred, we pray for them, we honor them. and let me say this, that going forward -- ms. ros-lehtinen: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 second. mr. gibson: going forward that this body, whether it be this issue or any issue that this body and that this country shall be worthy of the sacrifices of our service men and women. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. palazzo, a member of the armed services committee and a marine veteran of the first gulf war who

continues to serve with the army national guard. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. palazzo: mr. speaker, the resolution proposed by my colleague from ohio does a disservice to the men and women who have courageously defended our country in afghanistan. i had the distinct honor and pleasure of welcoming home safers based in mississippi. they had the most dangerous mission in afghanistan. they were the ones that cleared routes so our men and women in uniform could have safe passage. they were the ones that rooted out the i.e.d.'s and the roadside bombs. and i'm happy to say they came back 100% with one wounded warrior, but they did their mission. while they were obviously overjoyed to see their loved ones again, the soldiers i spoke with were good to go with that mission and what they had accomplished. they fully understand that there are those who want to